Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

MEMRI

Hemiauchenia you closed the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_305#RfC:_Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute_(MEMRI) as no consensus, would you mind re-reviewing that closure given the amount of socking that occured in the RFC? There are 4 socks of banned editors in that discussion, 3 Icewhiz and one AndresHerutJaim. The now blocked socks listed at the top of the RFC now, and each of those users was already banned when it was held. There was also a non-ec editor who was disqualified from participation as well (Resowithrae) nableezy - 14:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Based on my grepping skills, which admittedly is out of practice so a review is welcome, absent the four banned sockpuppets, 11 users for options 1 and 2, and 19 for options 3 and 4, with 15 of those for deprecate alone, and each of the four option 3 votes were either also for 4 or on the fence between 3 and 4. To 11 for either 1 or 2. Im not suggesting this should be changed to deprecate so long after it was run, but it certainly should be listed as generally unreliable. nableezy - 16:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I would be okay with the RFC being reclosed, but given that I opened it in the first place I would rather someone else uninvolved do it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Somebody out here willing to look at this? Though to be honest I dont think Hemiauchenia is actually involved, they didnt vote and only opened it on the basis that we had no recent discussion. nableezy - 17:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that re-closing is the right approach here. The RfC was held 3 years ago, the context and information landscape may have evolved since then. A new RfC would allow for the inclusion of updated information and recent developments, ensuring that the decision is based on the current state of affairs rather than outdated discussions. Alaexis_¿question? 20:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course you dont, you want to be able to argue that the RSP entry, not representative of the discussion minus the socks though it is, allows for the usage of a source that had a super majority support deprecation of. Im fine with a new RFC too, but the status quo should reflect the result of the last RFC, without the inclusion of the views of the banned editors that white-anted the RFC. nableezy - 20:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I think holding a new RFC would be the best approach here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, I am fine with that. I just also want the status quo to reflect the last RFC that was held as well. Because right now users are using this no consensus to argue anything goes with MEMRI, and that was obviously not "no consensus" minus the Icewhiz+AHJ socks. nableezy - 21:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: I've reclosed the discussion, see [1]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much, mind updating the RSP entry? nableezy - 21:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Already done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

oops, thank you very much. nableezy - 21:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I don’t think this was appropriate; to put it simply, three years means the discussion is too old to be revisited in this manner - at most the entry at RSP should be removed entirely and a new discussion held. BilledMammal (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I have done what has been asked of me. If you think It's necessary to have a new discussion, go and open one yourself. I Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

What I’m asking is that rather than reclosing you reverse the close entirely, because three years means the discussion is too old to be revisited in this manner - this will leave RSP with no entry on MEMRI, which should still address Nableezy’s concerns about the result being used in other discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to. Open a new RFC if you care enough. You can remove the RSP entry if you want to though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Done, thank you. With that said I am considering appealing this close at AN none the less, both due to the closure of a stale discussion and due to the oddity of a person who opened an RfC also being the person who assessed the consensus of it. BilledMammal (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

There's no reason to take this to AN, appealing the closure (or re-closure) of a 3 year old discussion is just a waste of time. Galobtter (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Normally that is true, but RSP entries are treated as the last word on the reliability of sources in contentious areas. Having one so clearly corrupted by socks of banned users was, to me at least, a Bad Thing™. nableezy - 01:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Not objecting to you asking for a reclose; just to spending a bunch of time at AN. Galobtter (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer it not to be necessary but I think it might be, due to Nableezy reverting the removal from RSP and due to the irregularities with this closure; if it was just the latter I would probably decide against opening an appeal, but listing at RSP has broad and ongoing consequences. BilledMammal (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If you want to appeal what is about 18-19 deprecate, with repeated examples of outright fabrications offered, to 10 reliable or other considerations apply ending in "between no consensus and generally unreliable" by all means. Id be arguing that deprecate is the correct reading of that consensus though. nableezy - 01:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The person who opened the discussion did not appear to make any comment at all during it. That objection seems wikilawyeresque. Your removal also removed all the links to past discussions, so I reverted that. nableezy - 01:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: You mentioned in this thread that right now users are using this no consensus to argue anything goes with MEMRI would you be able to provide examples of this? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Here and here (article+talk). nableezy - 01:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

National File

Earlier this year, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that National File was created as a means of pushing InfoWars content while disguising its origin. Shouldn't it be included/blacklisted per WP:INFOWARS? Isi96 (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

It may be worth mentioning there, but on the plus side [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there aren't any citations to it now, but there's always the risk of new citations to it being added. Isi96 (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Huffington Post UK non-political

I was trying to cite the Huffington Post UK on the new shortwave broadcasts by the BBC on a page, but the Wiki system denied me saving the edit. As far as I understand, the Huffington Post is not completely banned! --Esperfulmo (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Esperfulmo:I was able to add it. I did not get a message. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a mystery why I wasn't allowed. --Esperfulmo (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Find a Grave -- perennial source (cemetery listings v. grave listings)

A discussion is was underway at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Find_a_Grave_clarification regarding a proposed clarification of the text about Find a Grave. (Apologies -- I should have opened the discussion here.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC) 16:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a restatement of the Reliable sources noticeboard discussion referenced above. It is restarted here seeking to clarify when Find a Grave is an acceptable source verses when it is an acceptable external link. 16:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

At present the WP:RSP#Find a Grave listing for Find a Grave reads as follows:

The content on Find a Grave is user-generated, and is therefore considered generally unreliable. Links to Find a Grave may sometimes be included in the external links section of articles, when the site offers valuable additional content, such as images not permitted for use on Wikipedia. Take care that the Find a Grave page does not itself contain prohibited content, such as copyright violations.

This is only partially correct. To clarify, I recommend the following:

Interment information for individuals on Find a Grave is usually user-generated, and is therefore considered generally unreliable as a reliable source. Information about listed cemeteries and "famous" people is under the editorial control of Find a Grave itself but remains unusable as a reliable source. Accordingly, links to Find a Grave interment listings may sometimes be included in the external links section of articles, when the site offers valuable additional content, such as images not permitted for use on Wikipedia. Links to Find a Grave cemetery pages are generally acceptable in article External links sections. In all cases take care that the Find a Grave page does not itself contain prohibited content, such as copyright violations.

[Strike-out – Is this sentence useful, correct, or needed?]

[Italics – added verbage.]

This change distinguishes between the user-generatd burial listings and the website-generated or controlled information. E.g. WP:RSCONTEXT. – S. Rich (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC) 16:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Per the discussion at RSN, no change is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The RSN is concerned with the "reliability of sources in context!" This discussion is about posting FAG as an External link. Little of the RSN discussion was about External link postings. – S. Rich (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad this has arisen. Generally speaking, External Links are not expected to be sources. On other external links we don't delete the links on a reliability issue - we just leave the External Links alone. I bring this up, because Nikkimaria has been removing Find a Grave from external links. Nikkimaria, know that I like you and respect your work, but I find it counter-productive to Wikipedia to remove Find a Grave from the external links section. In fact, you seem to be going through my content articles, making that change. It's happened so much, that I feel like you're screening my articles. Wikipedia, as far as I know, has never asserted that anything under External Links be scrutinized as a reliable source. I wish we could go back to having Find a Grave under External Links. — Maile (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I screen all articles for addition of such links, as the community consensus has been that they are rarely appropriate additions under the external links guideline. The discussion at RSN doesn't suggest that that has changed at this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

A few notes:

• RSP should probably just say "See Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Find a Grave about using it in ==External links==". That would prevent any (further) unfortunate drift between the two.
• The bit about "In all cases take care that the Find a Grave page does not itself contain prohibited content, such as copyright violations" means that WP:LINKVIO (a legal policy) applies even if you think you otherwise have a good excuse to be linking to a page at that website. It should likely be retained in some form.
• The "generally unreliable as a reliable source" is unnecessary, since WP:ELMAYBE #4 has said (for almost the dawn of time) that ==External links== do not have to be Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Accordingly, I suggest the following brief summary:

The entire website, including information about listed cemeteries and "famous" people, is generally unreliable. For inclusion in an external links section, see WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL. Never link to any page that contains copyright violations or other prohibited content.

I'm not sure that we need to provide any more detail than that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is a complete list of all the pages you two have both edited in the last 30 days. It's this page, plus one (1) article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, clarification for you, and why this is so irritating to me. It started in 2021 on article Sarah Selby, which I had rescued. If memory serves me, this was a draft or something which was deleted. I created the article as a new page, but not from the draft. Nikkimaria deleted the Find A Grave under External links. Ever since then, Nikkimaria has been deleting Find A Grave here and there that I've left in External links. — Maile (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Would be best to try and find a site with information beyond what we have. [3]. A problem we had many years ago was the addition of the links after misleading information a copyrighted images were added to the BIOS at FaG..... thus has left a sour taste to many long time editors that remember having to deal with it. This is why this page has the FaG entry and the information to contact them about copyright concerns. Moxy- 23:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Maile66: clarification for you: as I said above, I screen all articles for addition of such links - there has been extensive discussion on them which has resulted in the consensus currently expressed at RSP and at ELPEREN. In the interest of good faith, I'd appreciate it if you'd strike or hat your accusations so we can return to discussing the proposed change to see if that consensus may have changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there a way to link to a particular news source listing?

Is there a way to link to a particular news source listing? For example, for The Independent, I was hoping to be able to use Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The independent, but that doesn't seem to work. ReferenceMan (talk) 05:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep; we can add a shortcut, like {{/Shortcut|WP:The Independent}}. I've done that; you can now use WP:The Independent to link to it. BilledMammal (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Is there anyway to have that automatically done for all the sources? ReferenceMan (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I've simultaneously added WP:INDYUK as one. Shortcuts are added on a need-to-have basis in order to maximize utility without cluttering the Wikipedia namespace. Cheers! Remsense留 05:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

UK Government commented on Metro UK

So obviously Wikipedia has had enough RfCs and discussions on Metro and we, as a community have already decided that Metro is a not reliable source (WP:METRO). I am just adding this here since it occurred today, but the Met Office (UK government) commented on a X post after Metro posted “The Met Office warns the UK will be double-fisted by deadly snow and ice”. The Met office commented, “Needless to say, this isn't a term we'd use to describe the weather.” I ain’t saying we deprecate or do anything else for Metro right now, but I wanted to see if others would be ok if this comment/“discussion” gets added to the list of discussions about Metro UK? More so it isn’t forgotten if a discussion about deprecation ever came up. Thoughts? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

No, stupid twitter not-even-feuds do not have anything to do with the reliability of newspapers. --JBL (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Concur with JBL, this discussion is a waste of time it's a newspaper WP:HEADLINE which aren't considered for RS reliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Medium (website)

I recently ran into a problem when I tried to save some notes in a userspace page of mine. I was notified that a deprecated link was on the page, and only when I deactivated the link to Medium (website)'s website was I allowed to save the page. I didn't even have any intention of ever using the link in an article. What's going on? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The deprecated message doesn't stop you from saving, you just have to press save again. Only blacklisting stops you from saving. I guess it does make sense to have this in userspace, as that space is also used for drafting articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but why get a warning for Medium? It isn't deprecated at all. It should just be used very cautiously. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Medium isn't deprecated, it's only marked as generally unreliable. It's certainly usable under SPS and ABOUTSELF. Do you have an example where this happened? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I just tested the link in my sandbox and there was no warning. I guess that means there must have been another unreliable source on the page I was using, and it wasn't fully deprecated, but I still got warned. Strange. We can test it here: https://medium.com/@franksnepp/hope-hicks-nails-hooker-tapes-and-trump-4ffa449c5f32 While I would not use that source in an article, I found it while doing research and I can document that content using RS. Together with Michael Cohen's testimony, it's easy to document that Cohen and Trump learned of the pee tape rumor (which we know of from the Steele dossier) shortly after Trump left Moscow in early November 2013, after the Miss Universe pageant, and Cohen testified that many people knew of it long before the dossier was even written. It's been a public secret in Russia since late 2013 and a closely guarded one in America, with several named people who knew of it since that time. (I have a list of over 15 people who knew.)

On January 5, 2017, right before Trump took office, Comey and the intel chiefs met with Trump at Trump Tower. Comey then informed him of this salacious dossier allegation, but Trump did not tell Comey that he and a number of others already knew of the rumor and had always known about it. Steele's sources were just telling him about an old rumor. Steele did not invent that story, nor did his sources. That is a common misunderstanding.

So, back to the situation here. Apparently one can be warned about a poor source without being totally blocked from saving the page. I must have misunderstood the warning message and thought I had to remove the offending link before I could save the page, and I just happened to remember that the Medium link was a questionable one. That warning should mention the link, but it doesn't. That's not good. How is one to know? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I am able to reproduce the wording, but not the wikilinks, of the template that appeared:

An automated filter has detected that you are adding a link to a deprecated source, considered generally unreliable after discussion by the community. References to these sources are generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. Please cite a more reliable source instead. If the only source you can find for the claims is one of these deprecated sources then you should not add the content in question. Note: There are limited exceptions to this rule (such as when the source itself is the topic being discussed). If you have checked the policy on Wikipedia:Reliable sources and the deprecated source guidance (or checked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) and verified that your edit is one of the limited exceptions, then you may resubmit it by clicking "Publish changes" again. Please do not do this unless you have first verified that this specific use of the deprecated source has broad support, especially for biographical articles: deprecated sources are liable to be removed on sight and persistent addition can lead to editing restrictions.

I did not notice the words "then you may resubmit it by clicking "Publish changes" again." The template should tell the editor which source is problematic. Where is this template located? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

That it doesn't say what source is problematic is annoying. It appears the message comes from MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-deprecated, which has a talk page message asking this exact question back in 2021 that in turn points to phab:T174554 from 2017. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Assessment of BBC non-English content

Hello! After reviewing the archives, I have not found an assessment of the non-English content. Regarding this edit therefore I actually agreed with the edit summary that there is no discussion, which is why we should re-add a clarification that the non-english content is not part of the rating, to prevent any misinterpretation by other language wikis. Unless, we have evidence that the headquarters conduct quality control on the content published in other languages (and that those content are as reliable as the English content)? If so, can someone bring that up? Many thanks,

Tagging Mx. Granger as courtesy. --PeaceNT (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there any reason to think that the BBC's non-English news and documentary content should be treated differently from its English-language programming? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Things get discussed because there are issues with, or questions over, reliablity. If no discussions take place nothing is added to RSP. Unless you have specific questions about the reliability of a source there's nothing to discuss. Also RSP shows the results of discussions of a source on enwiki, how or what other language wikis do is of no concern here and should be discussed on those wikis. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

As said by others, is there any reason to believe the BBC do not apply the same editorial standards? Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

My primary concern is the reputation of BBC in Eastern countries differs from that in English-speaking countries. I have not seen evidence to suggest that the same level of quality control is extended across all languages, so I am curious. This is particularly relevant to English Wikipedia, as foreign language sources are accepted here per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. We just need to ensure that their non-English content is not mistaken for a reliable source, as none of our previous discussions here have suggested that idea. --PeaceNT (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

So, do you have some evidence that an organization as large and multinational as the BBC does not have the same or comparable standards and quality control across languages and regions? That would be the starting point for this discussion. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

That no discussion has happened in no way means a source is unreliable, in fact it's the other way round. If no-one has ever thought to question the reliability of a source then it's generally considered reliable. You need to show why the none English BBC content shouldn't be considered reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I would consider them reliable unless shown not to be. FortunateSons (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Apart from suggestions that the Arabic service (now discontinued, along with the Chinese and Hindi service among others, due to cost-cutting) had an anti-Israel bias,[4] the non-English content is generally accepted to be top tier for news and factual reporting. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC).

Page Recommendations

My page "Fergus James" has put up for deletion despite meeting the criteria to be accepted as the person is most definitely notable having several songs with over 1,000,000 streams on Spotify. FFelxii (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)